I appreciate the encouragement from everyone. However, this isn't about what I might be able to learn (and unlearn!) in my remaining years. My point is that it's SOFTWARE and I shouldn't have to. In some ways your recommendations are tantamount to saying that soldiers should learn how to make and shoot longbows in case an Apocalypse ends the industial production of guns and bullets. As a species we have advanced on the assumption that technology becomes the basis for even greater technology in the future.

Giglad is first and foremost an arranger software. The purpose of which is to generate polyphonic output in a semi-intelligent way, based on a (relative) minimum of input. It's evident to me that the programmer/developer aped Yamaha's unfortunate approach without considering the implications. Yamaha is currently the 900-lb gorilla of the arranger world so it seems logical to copy them. However, Roland had standardized on their excellent Chord Intelligence by 1991, and by the late '90s had a dominant market share. Yamaha was still fumbling to release their first pro arranger. [Do any of you know how many different chord recognition modes the PSR-9000pro had!? (Check out the manual)] If Roland hadn't removed their foot from the accelerator on arranger development, and also made some different decisions about distribution and sales, they would STILL have a large user base that could not be so easily ignored.

Playing a 3- or 4-note chord CANNOT be easier, faster, more ergonomic or accurate than playing a 1- or 2-note SUBSET of that same chord. As long as the "intelligent" system doesn't require you to play notes that aren't part of the original chord (and sometimes Yamaha's does), you'll always be doing less work, or the same amount. Consider: in the Megahertz world of integrated circuits, even the best players are NOT playing those 3- or 4-notes at the "same time." On a piano or organ it's not critical. But on an arranger, if the timing difference exceeds a certain threshold (20ms?) false notes, or even falsely recognized chords appear in the MIDI. The best boards disguise this phenomenon with portamento, but if the player is sloppy it's audible and sounds "arrangerish." The more notes you have to press to trigger a chord, the greater the risk of one of them being late or incorrect. My other observation also remains valid, that successive 3- or 4-note chords are much more likely to require hand repositioning than successive "shortcut" chords. Single-note majors (assuming root bass) completely avoid the timing issue and are a boon to hand positioning.

Many of you are pros and can play two-handed piano, AGO-type church organs, the B3 and other non-intelligent instruments. You have my admiration and respect! My own music-making ability has never extended beyond chord organs like the Hammond S6 (brilliant for 1950) or its successors, intelligent arrangers. Others in my camp should know that neither Giglad (as of this writing) nor Yamaha's current-production arrangers offer an optimal system for playing common chords ergonomically and with a minimum of fingering. Yamaha will probably never correct its "mistake" but I hold out hope that the programmers of Giglad will stumble across this post and pity our plight!